Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Additionally, many posts in this blog contain original material and previously unreported news. Any media outlet, website or blogger that reports previously unreported news or quotes opinions obtained from this website is ethically obligated to credit me or my blog in their initial report on the subject.

It’s the first analysis of its kind, providing a
state-to-state comparison of the various voucher laws and builds on the work
CER has done to rank charter school laws and tax credit-funded scholarship
programs.

“Having a voucher law on the books is a good start, but not
enough to make sure students are actually benefitting from school choice
programs,” Kara Kerwin, CER president said in a press release.

“Policy design
is critical, but the true strength of school choice voucher programs depends
heavily on implementation.”

The state voucher programs were evaluated in four areas:

Student eligibility requirements

Program Design

Preservation of private school autonomy

Student participation

“From the types of students eligible to the number of
regulations imposed on private schools, each element of a voucher program’s
design impacts how effectively the voucher truly empowers parents with the
ability to choose the best school for their child,” Brian Backstrom, CER senior
policy advisor and author of the report, said.

Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin earned an A grade for their
programs.

With 31 out of 50 total points, Indiana offers a universal
voucher program available to all students and imposes no limits on the number
of vouchers awarded. But it ranked second worst in the nation when it comes to
infringing upon the private schools’ autonomy because it mandates course
content and allows government observation of classes.

Ohio earned 30 points for what the report called a
“piecemeal” approach to vouchers with five different programs. But its top
ranking for student participation was praised as a “worthy achievement.”

Wisconsin, home of the oldest voucher program in the county,
also earned 30 points, with its strong Milwaukee/Racine programs offering
choice to 12 percent of the state’s school-aged population.

Washington, D.C., Arizona and North Carolina tied for fourth
place with 27 points, earning them a B grade.

The
D.C. program has a high percentage of children receiving vouchers, but its
strict income eligibility threshold is the lowest in the country which limits
the program’s reach, the report said.

For the 2014-15 school year, North Carolina’s program got
twice as many applications as there were vouchers available. The state is
currently defending
a lawsuit against the voucher program which is on hold due to an injunction
halting the distribution of the funds.

Arizona’s personal
education accounts worked so well it was expanded in 2013. The state
deposits educational funds directly into an account controlled by the parents
who can choose how to spend the funds using a type of debit card that is coded
to allow its usage only for pre-approved expenses. The accounts can be used for
tuition at any school, to pay for college or university courses while their
child is still in high school, for online education, certified tutors, testing
preparation like for SATs, or even a la carte public school courses (foreign
languages, for example). They also have the choice to not spend it and put it
toward a future college education. Anything not used in a year is allowed to
accumulate.

It’s a popular idea. Florida just implemented a similar one
and Delaware just proposed their own program based on the concept.

Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah and
Mississippi all earned a C grade with scores of between 19 and 23 points.

Louisiana imposes “such significant regulatory intrusion”
that it ends up with a C. Their regulations are such that new private schools
are prohibited from participating.

The ranking for Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah and
Mississippi are due primarily to the fact that their programs are only for
special needs students.

Colorado’s program is tied up in legal wrangling, but even
if it were implemented, it only offers 500 vouchers for the more than 62,000
eligible children.

Vermont and Maine both earned D grades because they don’t
offer a modern-day voucher program, but merely a method by which students in
areas and towns without any district school systems can get an education.

The report states that legislators considering vouchers or
modifying their existing programs “would be well-served by examining the design
elements that have led to the success of several state

programs, and the
components of state voucher program laws that are holding some states back.”

With “reliable policy blueprints and visible implementation
of strong voucher programs, more state leaders need to step up to the plate in
order to grow and expand school choice opportunities across the U.S. so more
children have access to options that best meet their individual learning
needs,” Kerwin said.